Keith Goodridge Construction v. WYBS, Inc. [1]

In August 2008, Keith Goodridge sued WYBS, Inc., owner of the site www.merchantcircle.com, and a John Doe using the screen name "Attorney" over allegedly defamatory comments posted to the site.  According to the complaint [2], a posting from June 4, 2008 falsely claimed that an outdoor arena Keith Goodridge Construction (KGC) had built collapsed, killing a teenager. 

WYBS removed [2] the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss [3], claiming that it was immune from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act [4] ("Section 230 [5]"). In February 2009, Goodridge amended his complaint [6] to add factual allegations regarding a second allegedly defamatory posting on merchantcircle.com, from November 21, 2008.  He also attempted to plead around Section 23 by claiming that WYBS itself republished both allegedly defamatory statements in multiple locations on its site.  Susan and Anthony Gatchell were added as defendants in lieu of the John Doe "Attorney."

WYBS filed a motion to dismiss [7] this amended complaint, claiming that the reposting alleged by Goodridge did not appear on WYBS's site, but rather on completely independent third-party sites, such as Craigslist.org.  It also reasserted its claim of immunity under Section 230.

On February 24, 2009, Goodridge filed a motion to remand [8] to state court, claiming that the addition of  Susan and Anthony Gatchell — both residents of Oregon like Goodridge — eliminated federal jurisdiction. In June 2009, a magistrate judge issued his recommendation [9] that the case be remanded to state court and that Goodridge be allowed to file a second amended complaint. 

On July 14, 2009, the federal district court adopted the findings and recommendation of the magistrate and remanded the case to the Linn County Circuit Court.

Update:

May 12, 2010 -  A reader submitted the following update via email: "The Linn County Court granted an anti-SLAPP motion in favor of WYBS against Plaintiffs in the amount of $22,242, on the ground that there was no objectively reasonable basis for the claim."